Howard Chu writes: > This is basically a continuation of this thread > http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/201111/msg00063.html > > I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is fine. Do we need to > change any other instances of "mdb" as well, or can we just let them slide?
Need, no, but my vote is for changing it throughout. Failing that, changing the user-visible stuff. File extensions, program names, documentation. For consistency, and taking the opportunity to escape the Goolge(mdb) hits for Microsoft's MDB. "back-mdb" doesn't hit those, but "database mdb" and the .mdb file extension do. Also, what is it going to be called now? It now seems to be the Lightning mdb -- as opposed to the Microsoft mdb? Yet an mdb isn't some well-established term, even if we've talked about it a lot lately. So I'm not exactly sure what the stand-alone name "mdb" is needed for at this point. Unless that can be fixed by just phrasing things a bit differenlty than I just did. -- Hallvard
